Author
Topic: NHL Offseason 2012 (Read 4650 times)

Yeah, looking like a slow winter/spring at this point. Was watching local guys on Twitter tonight discussing it... Funny thing was that the 11 o'clock news played a clip from Vitale practicing at the RMU rink with a couple other Pens today and he's all optomistic.

I guess that news reporter wasn't following Twitter all night and decided to go with the whole optomistic angle.

Should we lay odds on how much of the season we lose tomorrow? I think they'll blow out all of November (through 11/30) and leave just enough wiggle room so they have another two weeks or so before they decide the fate of the Winter Classic (by 11/10).

Found it out of the blue that the Islanders are moving too... Didn't realize that was really on the table.

I think the move to Brooklyn surprised everyone. Wang (owner of the Isles) had been wanting support for a long time to replace the Colliseum but just wasn't getting it. I'm sure there's a deal in the works to cut in the Nets owners as well, expand the Brooklyn arena and see if they can't compete with the MSG entity.

As for the lockout, I'm really, truly trying to figure out what the players want. They 'lost' the last lockout and managed to nearly double their salaries in the time in between. So while I see their point that they will lose money in the short term if they cave, I'm really not clear on the mathematics of losing an entire season. Certainly it hurts the owners to a degree (though some benefit from having only losses with near zero expenditures because those can be more easily written off than losses with full expenses) but losing a full season will hurt the players as a group far, far more. If only because the negative repercussions will lead to decreased revenue, meaning they'll see less salary increases while the owners see less revenue. On top of that they don't seem to consider much of the following:

-last lockout saw players lose a full year's salary - as Roenick indicated that was 6 million dollars he'll never, ever lay a hand on

-maybe 5% of players can achieve nearly the same salary in the KHL as they're getting in the NHL

-probably 20% of players can ultimately obtain regular league play overseas in either European or Russian leagues but certainly nowhere near the same salary they are currently achieving

-that leaves roughly 75% of the league that really doesn't have much of an option (of which maybe 10% will find employment in the AHL and similar for pay leagues, at roughly 1/10 of their NHL salary)

-after the last lockout, nearly 20% of the players never played in the NHL again. ouch.

-the average NHL career is 4.5 years long so giving up one of those years is a little over 20% of your earning potential

This is worth fighting a principle on? You can't take principles to the bank and really, let's not kid ourselves, these guys are fighting solely for their own pocketbooks, they won't give a crap 6-8 years down the road when they are mostly retired.

The owners aren't great by any shakes, but even NBA players figured out that playing for millions of dollars per year less some percentage was a hell of a lot smarter than not playing at all and not getting paid. With all due respect to NBA players, I honestly never thought of them as smarter than NHL players. Clearly I was wrong.

The Islanders had apparently been trying to stay in their old home (the Nassau Colliseum), but the ownership totally recognized that the facility was outdated and falling apart. So, the team tried to find public financing to either rennovate or replace the existing arena. It went to a bond vote, and the voters of Nassau county voted against the measure. Out of the three NYC metro area teams the Islanders are definitely not rolling in dough. So it seemed that without public financing a new arena was out of the question.

So what happens? The New Jersey Nets get bought by a Russian billionaire (and a minority stake for JayZ), and they find a new home in Brooklyn. The New Jersey home of the Nets had never really developed a loyal fanbase, but the move to Brooklyn might bring that. Add in a brand new arena, and there's going to be a lot of interest. Almost every concert at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn has been news since the arena opened up.

So what do the Islanders do? There's a brand new arena 15 miles from their current home, and it might just be free a few nights a week in the in winter. Personally, I can't see how they wouldn't go for that deal.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 10:01 PM by Nicklab »

Logged

"You were entrusted to lead the Republic." - Vote for Ven Zallow from THE OLD REPUBLIC in figure polls!

I wonder if they'll become the Brooklyn Islanders? I'd kinda dig that.

Read an interesting article/interview with Ryan Miller about what the players want, on Twitter. Basically he cited a lot of the "expansion" talk, and other things as the league wanting concessions from the PA plus to keep all the income via expansion and such.

*shrugs*

I just know I don't have hockey going on... and I'm missing, personally, two of the greatest players playing at any given point I can get home game tickets. It's sucking. Wish they'd figure some **** out.

I wonder if they'll become the Brooklyn Islanders? I'd kinda dig that.

I doubt they'll change the name. For the Nets, a name change totally made sense. When they were in the ABA they actually played in NYC and were the New York Nets. Then they moved across the river to the Meadowlands in Jersey and because of that they became the New Jersey Nets. And with the move to Brooklyn, Jay-Z's association with the team combined with a pretty strong sense of Brooklyn pride, it made sense to call the Nets the Brooklyn Nets.

As for the Islanders? Technically, they'll still be on Long Island. And in New York state as well as the city, now. I can't see a name change really benefitting them all that much. The new arena should definitely spark some interest in the team. At least, until they start playing and their record starts reminding people why the Islanders have become the red-headed step children of NYC area hockey teams.

Logged

"You were entrusted to lead the Republic." - Vote for Ven Zallow from THE OLD REPUBLIC in figure polls!

I like the idea of a separation of the teams though... Give the NY title to the Rangers... Go for something grittier with the Brooklyn Islanders. Go for the tougher sounding name. I'd really enjoy it.

Figured that news was coming but I figured the WC was gonna get pulled. Don't know why since that's the NHL's biggie and they probably don't want to drop it early. Just seemed like it was likely to me by all the twittering going on.

I can't see the Islanders doing that. Especially since they have something of a legacy, if you look back to their dynasty during the 1980's. Winning 4 Stanley Cups in a row is a legacy you don't walk away from so quickly.

Logged

"You were entrusted to lead the Republic." - Vote for Ven Zallow from THE OLD REPUBLIC in figure polls!

I understand the players are feeling stepped on. OK, I accept that, you're getting shafted. I'll leave my personal views aside on your stance. If the season is cancelled you will get exactly zero dollars of income from your NHL employer this year (escrow doesn't count, you're paying yourself from previous years). Zip. Zero. Nada.

The owners will generate zero revenue from their playthings this year. So they hurt too. For ten or so of the teams that means they're losing profits outright and it hurts probably pretty badly. Those are successful markets. Another ten teams (generously stated) are break even teams so while they're hurting in the sense of damage to the market, they're neither winning nor losing. The last ten teams are money losers and for them this ends up being LESS of a loss.

That said, each of those owners has other income and revenue streams that are significantly larger and allowed them to purchase their playthings. That other income is taxed. They are able to write off the losses from their plaything against their general revenue so even if they're losing, they're still winning. Twenty of the teams are net zero or losing while playing but are net positive while not playing because of tax write-offs. The other ten teams are the ten teams the players want to increase the share of revenue that is spread around to the lesser teams. Huh?

So at what point are the player demands going to appeal to the entire group of owners? Never would be the answer.

So the players are left with losing the battle but being paid some percentage less than previously of the total NHL revenue stream (yes Virginia, revenue is NOT profit). Essentially they're looking at, for the average player, a salary of 2.4 million dollars a year less about 25%. That's a pretty serious kick in the nuts but help me out here, what are the alternatives?

If the season goes, Phoenix will most likely fold or relocate. If it relocates, the players are ok, but ya think Shane Doan is going to want to go to Quebec City?